Sitting of 10 August 1855

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL—3° Despatch of Business, Court of Chancery.

THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
In reply to a question from Mr. SPOONER,
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the

2105
money voted on account in respect of the Houses of Parliament was for the completion of works lately commenced, but three large works—namely, the Victoria Tower, the Clock Tower, and the plot of buildings between the Victoria Tower and St. Stephen's Porch, were not included. He had seen Sir Charles Barry, and had told him that he would not sanction any new works whatever until he saw that the works now in hand were on the eve of completion. From the conversation which he had had with Sir Charles Barry, there was every reason to suppose that the money which had been voted Would be sufficient to carry out the works to which it was intended to be applied—and he had instructed him that he was on no account to deviate from the plans, unless he received a written authority to do so from the President of the Board of Works.

THE ITALIAN LEGION.
MR. G. BOWYER: * Sir, I rise to put a question to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury regarding the proposed Italian Legion; and as a few observations on the subject are required, I shall move the adjournment of the House. I think the enlistment of an Italian Legion in itself very desirable in many respects. It will no doubt bring to the aid of Her Majesty's troops a body of men well qualified to discharge military duties. It will also attract to an honourable profession a number of refugees and other persons employed in no particular occupation, and who are now likely to endanger the peace of Italy. The proposed Italian Legion therefore, viewed by itself, has my full approbation, agreeing as I do with the course which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing with reference to the war. But there are other and ulterior matters in connection with the proposed legion which I think well worthy of consideration. When that legion has performed the military services for which it is intended, what is to become of the men of whom it is to be composed? Are they to be disbanded? If they are disbanded, they may return to their own country; and as they will have been accustomed to warfare and military life and discipline, they may probably form a nucleus for renewed disturbances in Italy. That is a matter for serious consideration; especially when a noble Lord, holding a very high position in this country, in the most public and solemn manner, stated views and opinions founded on erroneous information,
2106
and calculated to encourage hopes and notions prejudicial to the peace of that country, and indeed to the very object of the noble Lord himself. On these views of that noble Lord, partly sanctioned by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, I beg to make a few observations.
The Italians are a very sanguine people, and it is not unlikely that some of them might infer from the observations of the noble Lord to which I have alluded, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make use of the proposed Italian Legion after it has discharged its duties in connection with the present war, in carrying into effect the views which the noble Lord has expressed regarding Italy. The wishes of the Sardinian Government have been referred to as a reason for organic changes in the Italian States. It has been said, that as Sardinia has a Constitutional Government, that country is naturally anxious that Constitutional Governments should prevail throughout Italy. But, however that may be, it is worth considering—especially now that Parliament is about to separate—whether it be not true that the history of the present Sardinian Government and the course which it has taken, have in a great degree given rise to the state of things which has been deplored by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The two invasions of Lombardy by Piedmont are one reason for what may be unsatisfactory in the present state of Italy. Piedmont has thereby been filled with Lombard refugees; persons, for the most part, of turbulent character, who are ready to take part in any revolutionary movement in the neighbouring States. In addition to that, there exists in Piedmont a press of the most inflammatory and agitating nature. And the collision brought about by the Sardinian Government between the Church and the Civil power is calculated to endanger public order throughout Italy. There are also secret societies in Piedmont either sanctioned or not opposed by the Government, and all these circumstances render Piedmont a focus of revolutionary spirit. But I will pass on to the observations of the noble Lord regarding the Papal States.
I have some right to speak on this subject because I was lately in that country and had opportunities of hearing the opinions of persons in authority, and of all classes there. In the Papal States, said the noble Lord, there existed a system of

2107
outrage and oppression: persons were imprisoned and subjected to dreadful ant cruel punishments in the chief towns, with out cause, and without the possibility of the innocent escaping. Now, it would be difficult to devise a statement more incorrect or more entirely devoid of foundation. Let us look at the facts. The Pope returned to Rome after a revolution ending in a system of terror which has but one other example in the history of Europe. During the Roman Republic, the refugees uniting with the lowest dregs of the Roman population, carried on a system of murder directed specially against the clergy. I know one instance which I may mention as an example. The head of a Religious Order, a most venerable person, remained in Rome rather than forsake the sacred duties of his office. He occupied himself in visiting the sick and performing his other ecclesiastical functions, until one day he was warned by a friend that the secret society had resolved to put him to death. He escaped disguised; and he had not been gone a quarter of an hour, when those men came to take him to the place where he was to be murdered. Such were the results of the Roman Revolution. And yet on the return of the Pope to his dominions no one was executed for a political offence: and there are now not more than twenty persons in the prisons charged with political offences. The Papal Government is the mildest in the world; and its proceedings are conducted with the greatest clemency. Let the House remember what was done by our own Government in the Ionian Islands when a revolt took place there. The Ionians sought to assert their own independence, and to unite with the Greek nation to which they belonged. And I do not see why Liberals here should not sympathise with the Greeks. But this attempt was put down. Many of the Ionians were publicly flogged, many were shot, and many were hanged. I know that I shall be told that every Government has a right to defend itself against attack, and that our Government was therefore justified in putting down the Ionian insurrection by severe measures. But I think that our Government ought not to judge harshly of other Governments which used severity in similar circumstances. Yet the Roman Government resorted to no such harsh measures as ours did in the Ionian Islands.
The noble Lord has spoken of cruel, barbarous punishments inflicted in the Roman
2108
States. But the extreme punishment in use there is the guillotine, which cannot be called a more cruel punishment than that inflicted in this country. And as to the alleged difficulty of the escape of innocent persons, I say that the proceedings of the Roman Courts are, it is true, dilatory; but that dilatoriness is owing to the extreme conscientiousness with which the proceedings are conducted, and the fear which the Government has of condemning an innocent man. But it has been alleged that persons have been arbitrarily imprisoned in the Roman States. Sir, I must admit that measures of this sort have been resorted to. But they were necessary on account of the existence of those secret societies which are the curse and bane of Italy, and which have never been completely extirpated. Those societies seem to be connected in some way with the character and notions of the Italians. They are so indigenous to the soil as to be almost a national institution, and they have baffled the efforts of every Government to suppress them. A short time ago, the Cardinal Secretary of State narrowly escaped falling a victim to the knife of an assassin at the very gates of the Vatican. That diabolical attempt was the work of a secret society; and so strong was its organisation and discipline that the assassin died without making any discovery of his accomplices. Sir, the House has lately passed a Crime and Outrage Bill for Ireland, giving great and arbitrary powers of imprisonment. That Bill was justified by Her Majesty's Government on the ground of the alleged existence of the Ribbon societies, which very much resemble the Italian secret societies. On the same grounds, strong powers of police are necessary in Italy for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of life. And I must say that the English Government are not blameless for the existence of this state of things in Italy. For when the Roman Revolutionary Government was suppressed by the French, Her Majesty's Consul, Mr. Freeborn, gave the protection of English passports to persons who ought to have been either apprehended or driven away immediately. By means of those documents, they remained at Rome as much as ten days after the French occupation had commenced, and established those correspondences and that secret organisation, which has enabled them to keep up their detestable system of conspiracy.
Sir, I come now to the question of the

2109
occupation of the Roman States by France and Austria. It has been said by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), that if the French and Austrian troops were withdrawn, the authority of the Pope would be denied. This is not so; though the popular notion in this country is that foreign bayonets are required to protect the Roman Government against its own subjects. Sir, there is no Sovereign in Europe more popular and more venerated than the Pope. Those who know the real state of Italy are aware that the occupation of the Roman States is a matter regarding the policy of France and Austria and the balance of power in that country. The Austrian troops entered the Legations; and France thought it necessary to take possession of Rome and place a force there. During the existence of the Roman Revolutionary Government Rome was filled to an extraordinary extent with refugees from all parts of the world. Rome was the last station, as it were, of the revolutions which had agitated Europe. And the remnants of those revolutions it was, and not the Romans, who carried on the Republican Government and defended Rome against the French. A French or Austrian force was necessary to drive out those men, and to prevent their returning and taking advantage of the characteristic indolence of the people to create fresh disturbances. And if the French were withdrawn, the revolutionary spirits all over Europe and the secret societies would no doubt make Rome their chief point of attack, and the peace of Italy might thereby again be endangered by revolutionary movements at Rome.
Sir, I believe the organic changes which the noble Lord recommended for Italy are quite out of the question in the present state of Europe. On the other hand, Administrative reform is required at Rome, and indeed it is wanted in this country also. The difficulty of carrying into effect that Administrative reform does not arise from the Ecclesiastical part of the Government. And, indeed, the extent of the Ecclesiastical element in the Roman Government has been greatly exaggerated. In truth there is not a large proportion of Ecclesiastics in the Roman Government, considering the nature of that Government. Thus, only two of the Ministers are Ecclesiastics, and all the rest are laymen. The office of Minister of Finance was until lately filled by a layman, and it
2110
is remarkable that he did not give satisfaction; whereas the Ecclesiastic who has been appointed in his place has made important improvements, diminishing the Customs duties and revising the tariff—very much on the principles of the tariff of Sir Robert Peel. I will mention another instance of the erroneous notions existing here about the Ecclesiastics in authority at Rome. It has often been stated that the College of Cardinals are opposed to the construction of railways. But this is utterly untrue. When I was at Rome lately, I took occasion, in conversation with a high official person, to point out to him the great importance of constructing a line of railroad from Rome to Civita Vecchia, and to Ancona and Bologna. I told him that I had heard in England that the Cardinals and the Roman Government objected to railways. He however assured me that this was untrue, and told me that the Government had made a survey of the lines which I had mentioned, and that they were ready to give that survey to any Company who would undertake to form a railway in accordance with it. The Roman Government is ready to give facilities for the construction of railways in the Papal States, and the only obstacle to their formation is the present state of Europe arising from the war.
Sir, we have been told by the noble Lord that there is outside of the towns in the Roman States an organised brigandage, which makes the roads unsafe and disables persons from travelling from one part of the country to the other, and that in fact the whole territory is thereby rendered unsafe. Nothing could be mere groundless than this statement. The brigandage which formerly existed in parts of that country has been utterly suppressed by the united efforts of the French and Austrians and the Roman Government. I was lately in the Roman States, and I had every opportunity of ascertaining the truth; and I can say from my own knowledge that the whole of that territory is now perfectly secure, and that brigandage no longer exists there.
Sir, I have already occupied the House too long; but I must add that it is a mistake in history, to suppose that the Italian Princes overturned the Constitution of their States and established despotism. The facts are the very reverse. Instead of the Princes overturning the Constitutions, it was the Constitutions which overturned the Princes—except in

2111
one instance, in which a revolution which had broken up the Constitution was put down by the army. And these Constitutions having thus ceased to exist, a new state of things necessarily arose, that is to say absolute Governments. Sir, I must here observe that the policy adopted by the British Government regarding Italy and especially the mission of Lord Minto, has done more to prevent the establishment of Constitutional Governments in that country than anything else. Lord Minto went to Italy professedly to give wise and prudent advice to the Sovereigns. He told them not to precipitate events, but to proceed gradually towards the establishment of political freedom. But he was very tike a man who advises a coachman to drive carefully, and at the same time throws stones at the horses. That was precisely the course pursued by Lord Minto. He encouraged and publicly countenanced the very men and parties, and fomented the notions most dangerous to public order. Then came the French Revolution and the crisis which overthrew Constitutional Government in Italy. Sir, I will now only thank the House for the patience with which they have heard me, and conclude by asking this question of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government: How do Her Majesty's Government propose to provide that the Italian Legion shall not in future become dangerous to peace and order in Italy? Sir, I move that this House at its rising adjourn to Monday.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: With regard, Sir to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I presume that it is not his intention to press it, because our future proceedings most be regulated by what takes place this evening in another place. As I apprehend the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he wishes to be informed what arrangements have been or are about to be made to prevent the Italian Legion from being dangerous to order and tranquility in Italy at the close of the war, when their services will no longer be required. The Italian Legion, the enrolment of which the hon. and learned Gentleman has applauded, will consist of some 4,000 or 5,000 men, who will, no doubt be capable of rendering good service in the contest in which we are engaged, and who will distinguish themselves on the scene of operations to which they may be dispatched. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to apprehend
2112
that these few thousand men going back to Italy, disbanded or not, will be dangerous to the peace of Italy. I presume that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not seriously entertain the idea that those men will return to Italy not disbanded, for he cannot think that the Government intends to invade Italy with a few thousand Italian soldiers, and therefore what he wishes to be informed about is, as to what security there will be that those men, when disbanded, will not become turbulent members of the country to which they respectively belong. To that inquiry my answer is, that those men, after having undergone the discipline which they will undergo, will be less likely than before to become turbulent subjects. I may take this opportunity of reminding the hon. and learned Gentleman that during the last war in Italy those. Sovereigns whom he takes so much under his protection, and whom he defends as friends of order—the Pope and the King of Naples—sent large forces to make war in favour of the revolutionary cause, to turn the Austrians out of the country, and to establish a united Italy. Well, those troops were afterwards disbanded, but I have never heard that they became turbulent, or that they in any way threatened the peace of Italy. I doubt not but that the Italian Legion will return to their homes and become much better citizens in consequence of the discipline which they will have undergone, and the habits which they will have acquired in the service. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, made some remarks which I cannot pass over without comment, and I think that any real friend of the present system of Government either in Rome or Naples would confer much greater favour upon the Governments which he means to patronise by holding his tongue than by attempting to make any defence of their conduct. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is entirely deceived with regard to the state of these countries, and their system of government. The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no cruelty in cutting people's heads off. That of course, must be a matter for the opinion of the world in general. A great amount of cruelty may be exercised without the victims of that cruelty being put to death. Everybody knows that the greatest cruelty has been exercised in the kingdoms to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. The hon. learned Gentleman says that there have been secret socities

2113
in Italy, and combinations against the Executive Government which have led to acts of cruelty on the part of the Government, but, at the same time, he says that those who have been most to blame are the British Government and the British Consul at Rome. I cannot admit that the conduct of the British Government has been open to censure, but, on the contrary, I feel the greatest satisfaction in reflecting upon everything which the British Government has done. I think that the censure which the hon. and learned Gentleman has cast upon Lord Minto is altogether unjust. Lord Minto went to Italy for the purpose of consulting with those Governments which were willing or disposed to take his advice, and of recommending them to proceed quietly, dispassionately, perseveringly, and steadily in the course of administrative improvement, to avoid any of those rash steps which might lead to a crisis, and to look to administrative improvements before turning their attention to improvements in their constitution. Lord Minto did not encourage underhand anything that he disapproved officially; all his transactions were fair and aboveboard, and every act of his will bear the strictest scrutiny. With regard to Mr. Freeborn, our Consul at Rome, I believe that he conferred great benefit upon the Papal Government by the course which he took after the termination of the siege. When the revolution was put down, the Republic put an end to, and the French troops entered Rome, many of the men whose brave defence of the city had excited general admiration, if they had remained in Rome, would have become victims of revenge, or the instruments of their own destruction. They would either have suffered great punishment when the Government became reinstated, or they would have been the victims of private revenge, for spoil, rapine, and plunder. Mr. Freeborn, the British consul, with the approbation of the British Government, gave passports to these persons, and freed Rome from what, if they had remained, would have been a source, I conceive, of great internal danger. Instead, therefore, of being open to censure, Mr. Freeborn properly discharged his duty, and he conferred great benefit upon the Government of Rome by what he did. With regard to the present state of Rome, I am not desirous of entering into a discussion upon the acts of another Government, but I may say that certain measures were recommended to the Papal Government
2114
by the Governments of England, France, Russia, and Austria, as far back as 1832, which, if adopted, would have been greatly beneficial, and would have prevented many evils which have since arisen. One of the great measures then recommended was what was called the "secularisation of the administrative and executive bodies." It is quite plain that affairs cannot go on well in a country where the administrative Government and the various tribunals are under the sway of a priesthood; and if that be true with regard to all priesthood, it must peculiarly be true with regard to the Catholic priesthood, because the very nature of the Catholic priest—his disconnection from all worldly affairs in being prevented from becoming a husband or father, or from having those social ties which connect men in general with the rest of the community—disqualifies him even more than any other priest from being the executive and administrative agent of a Government in all its ramifications. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely misinformed when he says that no oppressive power has been exercised in the Roman States. I can assure him that the prisons in those States still retain a large number of prisoners. A comparison has been drawn between the state of affairs in Rome and the precautions which were taken when a revolt occurred in the Ionian Islands. In the Ionian Islands there was a revolt, and that revolt was put down by force. If similar measures had been taken in Rome to those which were taken in the Ionian Islands the revolution would have been put down, and there would have been no ground to complain that the Government had improperly exercised their power. But the complaint with regard to Rome is this,—that long after the revolution had ceased, and when there was no danger of a new insurrection breaking out, persons have been arrested upon suspicion, not of having done certain acts, but sometimes merely upon suspicion of entertaining certain opinions; that they have been kept in prison without being brought to trial, and that for years they have languished amid all the horrors of a dungeon. The other day I was informed, upon what I believe to be good authority, of a circumstance which, some time ago, occurred in the kingdom of Naples, and which affords us a fair specimen of what is passing in certain parts of Italy. A very respectable man, in a provincial town in the kingdom of Naples, was arrested by the Government

2115
authorities, and his friends remonstrated with the officer who had arrested him, saying, "This man is perfectly innocent; he has committed no offence whatever; he leads a quiet life; nobody has accused him of anything, and he must have been arrested through some mistake." The officer replied, "There is no mistake whatever. I know him to be perfectly innocent, and that he has not committed an offence any more than you or I." "Then, why have you arrested him?" was naturally asked. "Why, I have arrested him, because I have been lately taken to task by the Government for want of activity. I have been told, 'You have arrested nobody for such a length of time and you must arrest somebody.' Why then, should I not arrest your friend as well as anybody else?" Such is the course taken by the Governments of which the hon. and learned Member has made himself the advocate. And this is not all. I was informed a short time ago that a man bad been arrested in one of these States simply for the purpose of extorting a ransom from his friends, and, that, 1 am told, is no rare occurrence. In short, you may depend upon it, that when a Government rests its safety, not upon cruelty, but upon making the people happy, contented, and free, it will act in a manner consistent with the security of the State; but so long as it arrests men upon the denunciations of a secret police, authorised to arrest whom they please, to keep their prisoners without trial as long as they like, and then to extort money from their friends for their liberation, so long will there be strictures upon its conduct.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to take the liberty of saying that, during a tolerably long experience of that House, he had never witnessed so great an abuse of the privileges enjoyed by private Members as that of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had been guilty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that that was the only opportunity he had of making a speech on the subject, but, surely an opportunity had been afforded him when the noble Lord the Member for London brought forward the subject of Italy a few days ago. He thought some measures should be taken to prevent such abuses as those of the power of individual Members, by which the House was prevented from taking up the real business before it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DESPATCH OF BUSINESS, COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
[Progress, 9th August.] Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. MALINSsaid, he did not blame the hon. and learned Solicitor General for bringing on a Bill of such importance at so late a period of the Session; but it was obvious that the Committee could not give the subject all the consideration it deserved. He had shown that the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error in supposing another Judge necessary, because there was no delay in cases at the Chambers of the Judge. The present system of Chancery administration worked very satisfactorily, and he did not think, from the opinion expressed by the Judges themselves, that there was any necessity for the appointment of additional chief clerks. He did not mean to say that, when the system which had been recently introduced was more fully developed, it might not be necessary to appoint additional chief clerks, or even additional Judges, but at present he believed that any inconvenience might be obviated by the appointment of junior clerks, and he therefore approved generally the objects of the Bill, As the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had the other night referred to the question of Chancery Reform, he (Mr. Malins) might say that he thought some alteration was most urgently required with regard to the system of appellate jurisdiction. All appeals from the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellors went to the Lord Chancellor alone. It was felt that that proceeding was a hardship and an evil; and the Act of 1851 was passed to remedy it, creating, as it did, a Court of Appeal with two Judges. Now the system of one Judge reversing the decision of another could never be satisfactory. But the Act of 1851 had not caused that system to cease, for the Lords Justices and the Lord Chancellor, both sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall in two Courts, still continued to decide appeals separately. He did not see why the Lord Chancellor should be called upon to decide appeals when there was a Court for the purpose, presided over by the Lords Justices. He had known the Lord Chancellor call for the appeal paper, and fix what appeals should be put into the paper, of his own Court. It was an extraordinary anomaly that neither of the two Lords Justices could decide an appeal

2117
alone, though both most eminent Judges; whereas, the Lord Chancellor was considered to be sufficient to decide appeals of the highest importance. He put it, therefore, to the serious consideration of the Government, whether the system of appeal from a single Judge to a single Judge should not be got rid of. But it might be said that there was appeal from the Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords. So there was; but the justice administered was not speedy, as an appeal to the House of Lords could scarcely ever be heard under two years. It was, therefore, too slow—too expensive—and neither was the tribunal satisfactory? There was no obligation on any Judge to attend the House of Lords except the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, in no less than fire instances during the present year there was no judgment, because the cases were heard only by two learned Lords, and they differed in opinion. The public were prejudiced in favour of the House of Lords; but in reality the peers took no part, the attendance being limited to the law Lords. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—a tribunal whose proceedings had given the utmost satisfaction—never consisted of less than three Judges, and generally of four, five, or six, and he did not see why some tribunal of an analogous character should not be established in connection with the House of Lords. With regard to the subject of testamentary jurisdiction, be did not think it desirable to transfer that jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but if the Solicitor General brought forward a measure in general conformity with the opinions of the learned Commissioners who had considered the matter, he (Mr. Malins) would do his best to render such measure perfect and satisfactory.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, that the object of the Bill was to afford the chief clerks the assistance of an additional number of junior clerks, and it proposed that each chief clerk, who had now one junior clerk, should have an additional junior clerk. He considered it most important that the chief clerks should, as far as possible, discharge their duties in person, and he hoped some explanation would be given of the grounds on which the appointment of the additional junior clerks was recommended. He found it was proposed that the additional clerks should receive salaries of 250 1. a year. Now, if they were merely to relieve the chief clerks from some of the mechanical
2118
duties of their offices, he conceived the salary was too high; while, if they were required to discharge any judicial duties, it certainly was far too low. It was his opinion that if an unlimited power were given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint junior clerks they would not hereafter find that junior clerks would perform their duty in an efficient manner.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should move an Amendment to the effect that the increased number of clerks should be that of chief clerks, instead of junior clerks. It had been his wish that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He had reason to believe that the chief clerks had discharged their duties in a perfectly satisfactory manner; but if high salaries were paid to those clerks, and very inadequate salaries were paid to the junior clerks, it was not to be wondered at that the junior clerks should seek to evade their work. His opinion was, that it would be better to increase the number of senior clerks, and also to increase their salaries, than add to the number of junior clerks. He would take that opportunity of stating that the solicitors, as a body, were strongly opposed to the Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that as the Bill stood it began at the wrong end, and he would recommend that, instead of increasing the number of junior clerks, they should add to the position and emoluments of the chief clerks. He thought that the whole subject was one which it might be very proper to refer to a Select Committee.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not consider that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) would further the object in view of expediting the business of the Court of Chancery. It appeared to him that the increase of business in Chancery should be provided for by an addition to the number of Courts. He had, however, no objection to give aid to the chief clerks in the way proposed by the Bill, if there were an undue pressure upon them, provided the effect were not to constitute them Judges and relieve the Judges from that responsibility which ought to rest upon them.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must request the indulgence of the Committee for a short time. He wished to allude to the reforms which had recently been effected in the Court of Chancery, and to the benefit which had resulted from

2119
them. The result of the recent reforms introduced into the Court of Chancery was that the whole of the administrative functions formerly discharged in Court, to the great waste of public time and the expenditure of the suitors money, were now discharged in Chambers, at great economy of time and money, and in such a manner as to give general satisfaction. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had stated there were 9,000 summonses issued in one year, and upwards of 3,000 orders made. Well, these involved transactions which to be conducted by responsible persons and yet did not call for any judicial determination or the application of great legal or intellectual powers. Such duties could not be better discharged than by chief and junior clerks. The Judges had unammously made a representation to the Lord Chancellor for additional assistance, although he was confident that not one of those eminent persons were desirous of in any way avoiding any of the duty which devolved upon him. As regarded the state of business in Chambers, he was prepared to deny that at the present moment there was, except in case of the continuation of examination which had been commenced, anything like approximation to arrears. He willingly recognized the great propriety of the observations made upon the general question by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) and other speakers, and agreed that anything like a return to the former system of Chancery proceeding would be much to be deprecated. Of that, however, there did not seem any danger. He trusted the Committee would have no difficulty in acceding to the proposal for giving one additional clerk to each of the chief clerks, and he was inclined to doubt whether, instead of appointing additional chief clerks, it would not be better to appoint another Judge. On that point, however, he might say that, anticipating the passing of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, it had been his hope, in appointing a Judge to deal with the testamentary and matrimonial business, which would not have occupied more than one-half of his judicial time, that that judge would have been able to give other his time to business of the court of chancery. There was one point of great importance to which he might advert here. Service instances had occurred. Several instances had occurred in which the House of Lords, sitting as a Court of Appeal, had failed to
2120
discharge satisfactorily its proper functions. He quite admitted that scarcely anything was amended in the judicial instructions of the country until the recognition of the necessity of that Amendment had been passed on, so to speak, from father to son, and from generation; and so it was with regard to the House of Lords. It was therefore, doubtful how long it might be before they got a tribunal in the last resort satisfactory in its constitution. The members of the present tribunal felt themselves at liberty to attend or not attend, as they pleased; with the rest of the Court were mere volunteers; they attended a judicial sitting as they would a debate; they felt themselves at liberty to remain during the whole of the arguments, or not; and the result was, that that court, the decisions of which ought to be unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, was felt to be unsatisfactory in its constitution and inferior to the lowest tribunal in what ought to be the accompaniments of a court of Justice. He had already drawn the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the subject, but he readily confessed that it was one which was most difficult to deal with. He might here express his regret that it was not the rule to confer a peerage on some eminent member of the Scotch Bench, who might thus become a member of the appellate tribunal of the House of Lords. A great number of appeals were every year brought from Scotch, and, besides the advantage which would result from the presence in the Upper House, when those came before it, of a judicial personage versed in the law of Scotland, he thought it was only due to the high position and eminence of the Scotch Bench that a peerage should be conferred on one of its members. In conclusion, he trusted the Committee would endorse the unanimous opinion come to by the Judges of the Court of Chancery and the Lord chancellor, and would agree in the necessity of the slight addition in the Court proposed to be made by the present Bill. With gave regard to Chancellor the power of appointing any number of permanent additional clerks, it was his intention to strike out that section, and to substitute for it a clause enabling the Lords Chancellor, from time to time, as necessity arose, to appoint

2121
other temporary clerks, He did not wish to arm the Lord Chancellor with any more power than was really necessary, and he hoped all difficulty on the subject before the Committee would now be removed.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had felt, when he addressed the Committee the day before, that the subject of the Bill was of the utmost gravity, and that opinion was very much confirmed by the observations to which the Committee had just listened. He had long felt that neither the appellate jurisdiction as it existed in Chancery, nor the appellate jurisdiction, in the last resort, were at the present moment satisfactory. He entertained great doubts as to the advantage of a double Court of appeal, believing that one appeal was for the benefit of the suitors, but that that appeal ought to be an unexceptionable Court. It was not, however, expedient to pursue the subject further on the present occasion. Enough had been said in presence of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to show the opinion of one of the law advisers of the Crown, a man at the head of his profession, as to the necessity of some alteration, and he trusted that that most important matter would receive the careful consideration of the Government. Any change in regard to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was one of the gravest questions which could be brought before Parliament, because that was one of the most ancient powers possessed by the other branch of the Legislature. Whether they would surrender that power was a matter open to question, but he would remind the noble Lord that it was the duty of the Government, when once they had made up their minds as to the course to be pursued, to bring all their influence to bear in endeavouring to reconcile Parliament to any change which might be thought necessary. He thought that the debate altogether would not be thrown away, and he was quite sure that the zeal of his noble Friend to promote the public interest would lead him during the recess to give the utmost attention to that important subject. With regard to the second clause, there was no reason whatever why it should be retained. Instead of modifying it, it would be much better if his hon. and learned Friend would consent to withdraw it altogether.
Amendment withdrawn: Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 struck out.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 10 struck out.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, with Amendments.
Bill read 3°, and passed.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Public Health Act (No. 2); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Advances; Navigation Works (Ireland).

THE LEASING AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwould remind their Lordships that in the course of the Session the noble Lord on the woolsack had brought forward a Bill which had been unanimously accepted, and looked upon by their Lordships as one of the most useful measures that ever had been laid upon their Lordships' table. He referred to the Leasing and sales of Settled Estates Bill, which had, however, met an untimely fate in another place, for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Sir George Grey) had abandoned the Bill in the other House; and, as far as he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could learn, the Members of the Government had not supported the noble and learned Lord as he had a right to expect when he introduced a measure of that kind. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord if it was his intention to bring forward the measure again early in the next Session?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad the noble Earl had mentioned this subject, or he might not otherwise have had an opportunity of giving any explanation respecting it. He quite agreed with, the noble Earl when he stated that the Bill was a useful one, though he could take no credit to himself for it except as a Member of the Statute Law Commission, who had recommended the measure. After it had been passed with the almost unanimous, approval of their Lordships, he entrusted the care of it in the House of Commons, to his hon. and learned Friend the
2084
Solicitor General, who took exactly the same view of it as he himself did; but the lower House thought fit to refer it to a Select Committee: that circumstance, however, he had been assured by his hon. and learned Friend did not create any obstacle to the passing of the Bill; and as far as he could learn, the true reason which had prejudiced the Bill was, that a notion prevailed amongst one class of persons in the House of Commons that it would lead to what was vulgarly called the enclosure of Hampstead Heath. The fact was that the Bill had not the slightest bearing upon that question; but his hon. and learned Friend nevertheless assented to the introduction of a clause which prevented the possibility of anything of the sort taking place. Afterwards some discussion ensued as to whether that clause should be introduced or not. He (the Lord Chancellor) knew no more than the noble Earl himself had stated, for he had not seen the Secretary of State since the Bill was last mentioned in the House of Commons; but he collected from what was said on that occasion that it was found impossible to pass it. In reply to the question of the noble Earl, he begged to assure him that at the very earliest possible period next session he should re-introduce the Bill, and he trusted it would become law and be in operation without any unnecessary delay.
LORD CAMPBELLcalled attention to the fact that various Bills passed through their Lordships' House had not been effectively supported by the Members of the Government in the other House, though some of these measures had been introduced into their Lordships' House by Members of the Government. He must express his regret that the harmony and unity of action which ought to prevail did not exist in the two Houses of Parliament between the Members of the Government connected with the law.
LORD ST LEONARDSremarked that the heir of the Gentleman interested (Sir Thomas Wilson) would have as much power over Hampstead Heath as any lord over his manor. The Government ought to come to some arrangement by which the perpetual enjoyment of Hampstead Heath could be secured to the public.
LORD CAMPBELLagreed with the noble and learned Lord that if Hampstead Heath was so very valuable to the public it ought to be purchased for the public use.

EXCHEQUER BILLS(£7,000,000l.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLEconsidered the present Bill to afford a fitting opportunity for making a few observations on the present financial condition of the country. They had now arrived at the close of a Session in which a much greater amount of money to meet the supplies this year had been raised by taxation and by loan than in any year since that of the termination of the last war by the victory of Waterloo He did not, however, object to the expenditure they were incurring, or to the amount of money they had borrowed under present exigencies, because he believed there was no one of their Lordships, not even any one of the few who were peace advocates, who was not ready to assent to the principle, that the country being now engaged in a great contest, it was the duty of Parliament unhesitatingly to make all the sacrifices necessary to bring that contest to a speedy and successful termination. There was no circumstance more encouraging or more characteristic of the noble spirit of the people of England than the readiness which both sides of the House of Commons had shown to assist the Government and to make the most liberal provision for the war. But it was not on that account the less our duty to examine carefully the cause we were engaged in. He would, therefore, inquire what was our present expenditure as compared with its average amount for the three years immediately preceding the war? The army expenditure, on the average of 1851, 1852, and 1853, was 6,828,000 l.; in 1854 it rose to 8,810,000 l.; and in 1855 it reached 18,789,000 1. Our naval expenditure underwent an enormous increase, its average on the three years ending in 1853 being 6,828,000 l.; whilst in 1854 it rose to 14,800,000 l.; and in the present year it exceeded 19,000,000 l. The Ordnance expenditure on the average of the three years ending in 1853 was 2,666,000 l.; in 1854 it increased to 5,900,000 l.; and this year it rose to 8,644,000 l. The aggregate expenditure for the war departments, on the average of the three years above named was 16,300,000 l.; in 1854 it amounted to 29,600,000 l.; and in 1855 to 46,812,000 l. Add to this the Vote of credit for 3,000,000 l., and we have a sum
2086
of nearly 50,000,000 l. voted this year to defray the cost of the war. We were necessarily required to add to the charges for our debt the total amount for which the country was called upon to provide for the expenditure of the year, including the cost of the civil establishments and the interest of the debt, being between 80,000,000 l. and 90,000,000 l. Now, nothing that was really wanted for the purposes of the war ought to be grudged; but he grudged every increased charge, which, going beyond the wants and necessities of the war, introduced a new and bad principle, which must in the end fail. He regretted to find that a large proportion of this enormous expenditure was intended, not so much for the present services in the Crimea and the Baltic, as for the creation in this country of permanent future military establishments infinitely greater than could be maintained in time of peace. Large sums were expended actually and engagements prospectively incurred for erecting huge barracks and camps at home. It was the fashion to say, and no doubt it was to some extent true, that the losses we encountered at the commencement of the war might be attributable to an undue reduction of our military establishments during the peace. This argument, when true, was carried much too far; and it was not true in all cases—far too much of the costs we had endured had been ascribed to that one cause. Even if true, this was a dangerous argument to rely upon. It could never justify extravagance, for when the war was over he did not think the people of England would be found more disposed than formerly to tolerate an undue expenditure, for the purpose of keeping up our military establishments above their just scale, in time of peace. It should be borne in mind that, but for the reduction of our establishments and the consequent remissions of taxation which had been made during the peace, this country could never have accumulated the unexampled wealth and attained the almost inexhaustible credit which now enabled it to bear the colossal burdens imposed upon it since the renewal of hostilities. Experience of the past showed that it would be vain to expect the people of this country to endure War taxation and war establishments at a time when peace should have happily returned. The horrors of war were sufficiently manifest in the double demand made upon the finances of the country between. April and

2087
August in the present year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid before the Home two Estimates in the course of the present Session. The first estimate proposed in April for the army amounted to 16,221,197 l.; but there was a supplemental estimate taken for the same service in the present month, amounting to 2,568,335 l. The Navy estimate in April was 16,653,042 l., and the supplemental Vote in August 2,725,971 l. The first Ordnance Estimate in April was 7,803,154 l., and the supplemental estimate in August, 841,138 l; making the total original for these three departments 43,677,393 l.; and two months later adding a supplemental estimate to the amount of 6,135,000 l., defended as being the result of the experience gained from a two months' duration of war. In the original budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a large deficiency of income to provide for, and, with practical good sense, he had not relied on one single resource as the means of meeting this extraordinary expenditure, but had preferred new taxes to the amount he thought the country could bear, and obtained the balance by a loan contracted in the open market, and made on prudent terms. But finding afterwards that he required an additional grant of 6,000,000 l. he proposed, by the Bill now before the House, to raise this sum either by means of issuing additional Exchequer bills or Exchequer bonds. Now, he (Lord Monteagle) intreated Her Majesty's Ministers in that House to impress upon their colleague elsewhere that only the first of these alternatives should be resorted to; he meant the issue of Exchequer bills. The inconvenience attending the issue of Exchequer bonds had been proved by experience the system was not worthy of a country like this where commercial credit was unbounded, nor did it suit the game of the money market which it was intended to gratify. The issuing of bills at a long date was the spendthrift's resource, and was still more unjustifiable where no fixed fund was provided to pay off the debt. It must be remembered too that a chancellor of the Exchequer could not new resort to such easy means for raising money as were employed by Mr. Pitt in the French war; there was now no Bank restriction, and Government securities had to compete with railway debentures and securities of all sorts, which in some respects were preferable to the new securities which had been tried and failed. These Exchequer bonds
2088
were unwise engagements, being promises to pay at some future time when they had no assurance as to the ability of the Treasury to discharge them. They were also unwise as contracts to pay the same interest for the next four or six years, whether there should be peace or war, and whatever might be the value of money. Exchequer bills, on the contrary, possessed this advantage—that the interest on them could be altered as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought advisable. Even under all these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman had retained a margin not exceeding some 200,000 l. or 300,000 l., and the vast expenditure into which the country was now plunged made him (Lord Monteagle) regret more than ever that Parliament had been persuaded to repeal the newspaper stamp duty, the most gratuitous and uncalled-for sacrifice of revenue that had perhaps ever been made. This was a tax which was improving yearly, having risen from 320,000 l. in 1845 to 488,000 l. in 1854; its continuance was desired by those most interested in the matter, and the result of its remission had been actually to impose an additional tax on the consumers, in at least one case. That the former tax had not been injurious in the case of an ably conducted journal was shown by the great increase in the circulation of The Times, which in the last half-year had risen to upwards of 9,000,000—an issue somewhere about three times as great as that of all the other morning papers put together. Then their Lordships should remember that a loan had been guaranteed to Turkey, and advances had been made to Sardinia. He did not complain of either of those engagements, though, by the manner in which the Turkish Loan had been made, this country had contracted an unwise and uncalled-for obligation. Approving of the loan he thought a grievous mistake had been committed in giving our, obligation for the whole, and not for our own share of the loan; he regretted that the same course had not been followed as was prudently adopted by the parties to the Greek Loan. In 1830, Lord Aberdeen, the Duke of Wellington, and subsequently stipulated that England should only be bound for one third of the loan, and those eminent statesmen did not think that by so doing they were offering any insult to Russia or France, the other guaranteeing Powers. It was too bad, with this precedent before our eyes, that it should be

2089
stated that those who, like himself, had objected to the form in which the Turkish loan was contracted were offering an insult to France; he, on the contrary, affirmed that to have adopted the former course, would not only have been in conformity with an approved precedent, but would have been wise and prudent in so far as it tended to prevent future differences. With regard to Sardinia, they all rejoiced at the assistance afforded by the brave and excellent troops sent from that country to the Crimea; and it was equally certain that the resources of Sardinia were not in themselves sufficient for this object. He would now refer to the financial arrangements carried into effect in consequence of the recent change of system in the War Office. In the observations he was about to make, he meant not the slightest disrespect to the noble Lord at the head of that department, for he believed that noble Lord, from his long experience as Secretary at War, and from his character and abilities, was the man of all others the most likely to overcome difficulties and to vindicate for himself a new claim to the respect of the country. He would not now allude to the military part of the question; but only to its financial results; he would impress on the House and on his noble Friend the necessity of looking practically on this part of the question. In regard, to the financial arrangements of the War Department, he must take the liberty of inquiring and expressing some doubts, whether the object desired had been attained. Under the old system, which he was not the person to defend as one in all respects perfect, the Secretary at War was at least some check on the war authorities in respect to extravagant or irregular expenditure. Mr. Sidney Herbert had stated, in answer to a question put to him, that if any extravagant expenditure was incurred by the Secretary of State, it would be the duty of the Secretary at War to concur with the Treasury in opposing it. He (Lord Monteagle) did not know how that principle of control or check could now be worked out. Was his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) to control himself, for he saw no other control provided. Upon coming into office, under Lord Grey's Administration, he and his noble friend opposite (Earl Grey) found that, according to the old system, large Votes had long been annually taken under the colour of Army Extraordinaries, which Votes, practically speaking, were at the
2090
disposal of the Treasury for any possible object, and had been at times most irregularly applied; as an example, they found, to their astonishment, that the bishops of the Established Church in British North America were paid out of that Vote. The result was that shortly after, in Lord Melbourne's time, those army extraordinary Votes ceased. But there was a question of importance which remained connected with the Commissariat, even after the withdrawal of the extraordinary vote. Then there was a sum of upwards of 1,000,000 l., which constituted what was called the Commissariat chest account. That was an unappropriated sum of money, which was used as a banking deposit to enable the department to make advances for the public service, for the army, the navy, and Ordnance; such advances requiring to be repaid out of the Parliamentary Vote. The Commissariat, in its banking and financial functions, recruited the military chests. A more difficult task than to prevent misapplication of any of these advances, and to secure their accurate repayment, did not exist in any department of the civil service. But that was not the only duty of the Commissariat. The officers of that department were distributed all over the world—they had to provide funds for the public service—they had to purchase bullion—they had to draw and negotiate bills for the Treasury, and in all respects to act as bankers. These were functions with which a Secretary of State for the War Department had no necessary connection, nor had he the means or the knowledge of exercising a control. It could only be safely exercised by the Treasury, the supreme financial department of the State, the department bound to accept the Commissariat bills, and to provide funds for their liquidation. He believed the number of persons abroad authorised to draw bills on the Treasury was larger at the present moment and was more dispersed than ever it had been. There were agents purchasing supplies everywhere, and they all had power of drawing on the Treasury; and bills were drawn from Spain and Bagdad, from the Crimea, throughout Asia Minor and Damascus. Are all these agents to be placed hereafter under the Secretary of State for War? Are these bills to be paid and these financial operations to be carried on under his responsibility? There was no authority whatever for so dangerous a system. In the Duke of Richmond's draft Report it was stated—

2091
"The Commissariat there can be no difficulty in joining with the other departments; but, in doing so, it must not be lost sight of, that it is through the departments abroad that all the other departments in the Colonies and stations are supplied with money in the first instance. It is through them that the Treasury is enabled to check all extraordinary expenditure; they may be considered the bankers of all other departments; they regulate the currency in the Colonies, and order occasional payments, altogether unconnected with army expenditure. Care must be taken not to destroy any of these checks to which we have previously alluded, or impair, in any degree, the control which the Treasury exercises over every extraordinary expenditure."
And the subsequent Commission, of which he (Lord Monteagle) was a Member with Lord J. Russell, Lord Grey, Mr. Ellice, and the late General Sir J. Kempt, had also reported to a similar effect. They said—
"We are strongly impressed with the belief that the financial transactions of the Commissariat ought to be kept distinct from the management of the expenditure of any one branch of the service; and, if it should be found that the business could not be conveniently transacted by means of distinct officers employed directly under the Treasury, we think it might be arranged that the Commissariat should, in all that relates to their general banking business, correspond with the Treasury, and act under its orders, while they furnish their supplies under the Secretary at War."
The only further authority which he would quote was the more recent one, the noble Lord opposite (Earl Grey), who, in a speech delivered during the present Session; had said—
"I cannot understand how a department of business (the Commissariat), involving so much detail and so many matters of finance, can be conveniently dealt with in an office constituted like that of the Secretary of State. I certainly think it a description of business that would have been more; properly united to departments which are more conversant with pecuniary transactions and with matters of detail."
He contended that the financial transaction of the Commissariat should be kept wholly distinct from its military transactions. He believed that if, in time of war, left this department under the sole authority of the Secretary at State, they would have to complain of an undue expenditure, and they would make a sacrifice of financial accuracy and security. In the remarks he had felt it his duty to make, he hoped he had not uttered a word implying the slightest distrust of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his opinion, had shown a wise and excellent judgment in his general financial arrangements, nor yet of his
2092
noble Friend (Lord Panmure) he hoped; he believed that he had not uttered one word that could give them any pain, but his object had been to bring under their observation and that of the House, matters which, in his judgment, demanded early and most serious attention in order to guard against great and pressing dangers.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I should not have risen to address your Lordships were it not for the reference made in the speech of my noble Friend who has just resumed his seat to the Turkish loan. No doubt the Convention through which that loan was raised, between this country and France, is one of the most important financial operations of the Session; still it is not for the purpose of discussing its merits that I rise to say a few words. My Lords, I very much regret I was not present in my place when the discussion took place upon the subject; because it was with great surprise and pain that I read the accusation advanced by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he stated that the party occupying these (the Opposition) benches, as well as that portion of the same party having seats in the other House of Parliament, had treated this question as if they doubted the honesty of France and the honour of the French Emperor. My Lords, I think that great man knows sufficient of this country to estimate the value of party accusations against political opponents. He has lived long enough amongst us to know that what may be uttered on either side of the House in the heat of debate is widely different from the language and conduct of the same persons elsewhere; and certainly I never saw an instance in which that truth has been more clearly verified than when my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs rose in his place and accused the Opposition of suspecting the honesty of France and the honour of the Emperor in relation to this Convention. But the sacred horror which my noble Friend felt at the danger of the Convention being stultified by a division in the Upper House of Parliament made him forget what took place when I had the honour of holding the office which he new conducts with so much ability. Let me remind your Lordships, but above all let me remind my noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquees of Lansdowne), for he is more particularly Concerned, that when I had the honour of being Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs, I found before me in

2093
the Foreign Office a Convention that had been drawn up and completed by the Government which preceded ours—a Convention between England and France relating to the extradition of offenders. That Convention had already been agreed to, and I made no alterations in it except to liberalise it in some respects. Now, what took place with reference to that Convention? When the matter was brought under your Lordships' consideration, I will not say my noble Friend (Earl Granville)—who immediately preceded me at the Foreign Office—actually opposed it—though he remained during the discussion in solemn silence, and did not in the slightest degree offer me any assistance in defending it. But certainly those who had been the colleagues of the noble Earl—and most especially the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), most violently opposed the Convention; and it was quite in vain that I urged on them the Convention had been signed and ratified. And what was their argument? Did they at all cast suspicions upon the honour of the French nation and the French Emperor? Why, they said that if the Convention was ratified by Parliament the French Emperor would use it to get hold of some of the political refugees in this country. Yes, my Lords, such was the excuse alleged for the non-acceptance of a Convention already ratified between the two Sovereigns, and by the very men, and by the same party who now throw in the teeth of noble Lords on the Opposition side of this House and their Friends in the other House of Parliament, that they have taken an unusual course in attempting to oppose or stultify any treaty, and who cast on us the stain of doubting the good faith and honour of the Emperor of the French in the strict observance of treaties.
THE EARL of CLARENDON: Really the noble Earl and other noble Lords are quite under a misapprehension on this subject. I never made any such accusation against them. What I did say was, that some of the arguments used elsewhere in discussing the Turkish loan treaty would seem to throw a doubt upon the honour and say that any one did or could entertain a doubt of the honour of France, but that the arguments used might be construed to imply a doubt.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am extremely glad that I have taken an opportunity of referring to this
2094
subject, because I believe your Lordships cannot be too often occupied in repeating the unanimous feeling of confidence which pervades the nation in the high honour and integrity of France and her Emperor. But what I wished to impress upon your Lordships—in the absence of the contradiction by the noble Earl—was the unfairness of such an accusation coming from those who, when I had the honour of holding the seals of office, prevented me from supporting by an Act of Parliament a Convention that had been signed and ratified between the two countries. As I have already intimated to your Lordships, I now repeat, I was always impressed with the importance of the Convention, and I thought Parliament ought to be most careful before it stultified an act of such importance as a Convention signed by two Sovereigns. I am certainly much gratified to hear my noble Friend's denial of to-night, and I can assure him that I should not have alluded to the subject were it not for what I saw stated in the newspapers, confirmed as that was by remarks in private conversation.
EARL GRANVILLEthought the explanation of his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) would have been unnecessary if the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had himself been present when the former discussion took place. With regard to the Convention which the noble Earl had moved when he held the seals of the Foreign Office, he could hardly reconcile the noble Earl's charge against him now, for being so solemnly silent, with his compliment then, for the striking contrast his conduct afforded to the conduct of his Friends upon that occasion. With regard to the Turkish loan, he had never reproached the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) for bringing the question forward. He should never complain of any Member, of either House, pointing out every possible objection to such a treaty, and warning the House of any dangerous consequences which might flow from it. Whether it was justifiable for a party—feeling unable to turn out the present Government, but professing to support them in the most vigourous prosecution of the war—to join with those of an entirely opposite opinion, and thereby run the risk not only of enfeebling the Government, but diminishing the means of assisting Turkey and endangering the good understanding between this country and France, which up to the present time had been maintained with remarkable

2095
honour arid good faith, was quite another question, and into that question he did not wish to enter. His noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had alluded to that passage of his (Earl Granville's) speech in which he humorously described himself as a buffer between the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, His right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone, had complained to him of the simile if it were intended to imply two bodies actively in collision, because he denied that he was a party to any collision with the noble Lord. In this matter of the Turkish loan their opinions did not appear to accord, and he would again entirely decline acting as a buffer between the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman. He would not enter upon the ground which the noble Lord had travelled over, but he would merely say the object of the Government, in putting in the alternative of Exchequer bonds, was to secure any advantage which had be obtained from their becoming more and more a favourite security with the public. With regard to the military question he should of course abstain from giving any opinion. It was impossible to deny that, for her great resources the country was much indebted to the revision of taxation which had taken place, and, as to any reductions which might hereafter be effected, he only hoped, when they luckily arrived at a time of peace, no unnecessarily large establishments would be kept up, but at the same time that the reductions, would be carried out in such a manner as to maintain the efficiency of our establishments.
LORD CAMPBELLremarked that the noble Lord had referred to the Convention with France as to the extradition of prisoners; and he might say that no blame at all attached to the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury). In reference to that matter it had turned, out that that Convention, without any blame to the Government, was contrary to our law, and could not be carried into effect constitutionally. He was convinced on that occasion that it would be highly impolitic to pass an Act which would subject political refugees to be treated as criminals.
EARL GREY: My Lords, as the subject of the Turkish loan has been referred to. I cannot avoid taking this opportunity of expressing my opinion of the great impolicy of the Convention which has been entered into with France and Turkey.
2096
Without imputing the slightest suspicion of the French Government, without implying the smallest distrust of the honour and good faith of our ally, I submit that the form of the Convention is singularly calculated to lead to future difficulties between the two countries, to disturb that good understanding which now happily exists, and to throw on this country a financial burden much heavier than we are now led to expect. This is an arrangement which is to last for a long course of years, and will not be completed until probably all who have contributed to carry it into effect will have either ceased to take a part in the management of affairs, or have ended the term of their natural existence. We are, in the first place, made responsible for the whole interest of the Turkish Loan if Turkey does not pay, and I conceive no man in his senses believes that the Turkish Empire will be in existence forty years hence, or that there is the remotest chance of our not being called upon to pay the interest which we have bargained to pay. When we have paid that interest, it will be for us to call upon France to reimburse us her proportion. But, looking at the future, many changes may take place, and many questions may arise between the two countries which are now upon the best possible, terms. Having some supposed set-off, the French Government may claim the right of withholding that payment; we, on the other hand, not admitting any such right, may insist on being reimbursed, and difficulties may arise between the two countries. We have examples in our own history how little those who conclude arrangements of this kind can foresee what may happen in the course of a very few years. Your Lordship cannot forget the circumstances of the Russian-Dutch Loan. We all remember how this country guaranteed that loan. We also know that the honour of this country stands deservedly high, and that no party will ever sanction any course of proceeding Which is not Consistent with good faith; yet within fifteen years after we had entered into that convention there was the greatest difficulty in inducing the House of Commons to enable the Government to keep up the payments on the loan we had guaranteed, on the ground that circumstances had arisen which made a very numerous party in this country argue we were no longer called upon to continue our payments on account

2097
of the Russian-Dutch Loan. Those who remember the circumstances are aware that the Government were scarcely able to maintain the arrangement in the House of Commons.
LORD DENMANsaid, his father, who was Attorney General at the time, expressed his opinion that the rapture between Belgium and Holland did not in any way affect our obligation, and that good faith required the payments should not be interrupted; those payments never were interrupted, and had always been made in due course.
EARL GREY: The statement of the noble Baron confirms my argument. He states truly, that his respected father gave an opinion, the soundness of which no one can doubt, that the obligation of this country continued binding. Notwithstanding that high opinion, it was with the utmost difficulty that the Government were able to maintain in the House of Commons the obligation of continuing the payments. Nothing but the positive declaration, that the Government would not consent to hold office if they were defeated, coupled with very great exertions on their part, enabled them to maintain that arrangement in Parliament. If such doubts could arise in this country within so short a period, was there anything which savoured of disrespect to France to contemplate that twenty or thirty years hence the Government which might then exist in France could not contend that some circumstances had occurred to relieve them from the obligation, and would not decline to pay their share of the loan, leaving the burden upon us? These circumstances are not only possible, but probable. The whole system of guaranteeing loans for foreign countries is one that experience has taught us it is desirable to abandon. A loan is, indeed, a subsidy in disguise, and I had much rather that the Government had given the money to Turkey at once and openly. It is true we are told, "It is only your name that is wanted; the obligation will never fall due; the resources of Turkey are so ample that the use of your credit is all that is wanted." This is the language addressed sometimes to young gentlemen by their seniors who wish to prey upon their ignorance and credulity. They say, "There is no difficulty about getting the money, but the money-lender likes to have some security; it is only putting your name upon the back of the bill; it is a mere form, and does not signify anything." Too often the
2098
young gentleman afterwards finds that it would have been far cheaper to give his assistance to his friends by a direct gift or loan than by the mode of backing a bill. The Government has taken a similar imprudent course with regard to Turkey, and I fear it will be followed by the same results. I believe that, out of all the millions which this country has voted in subsidies, not one of those subsidies has been followed by the advantages which this country has expected from them. Still, if we are to have subsidies, let us have them in a plain and straightforward manner, and not subsidies in disguise. If you give your money, you may take some security that it was be devoted to the purposes for which it was intended. If you say you will pay the bills, you may send your own officers to see that the money goes to the soldiers and to the merchants who supply provisions for them, and your object will then be accomplished. But if you only give security for Turkey, you cannot, without setting aside her independence as a nation, prevent her from having the control of the money. Your Lordships know the present state of that most corrupt of all Governments, the Turkish Government, and that it is notorious that, of the money which ought to go into the Turkish Treasury for public purposes, no small proportion goes into the hands of corrupt pachas and griping money-lenders. Your Lordships well remember the distressed state of the Turkish army in Asia last winter. By the concurrent testimony of all the newspapers, the state to which the army was reduced was, not because Turkey had not a sufficient sum of money where with to pay the men, but because the funds had been the subject of unbounded peculation. In all countries there is a disposition to extravagance in the expenditure of the Government money, but in a country like Turkey that extravagance and peculation it is impossible to check. I did not intend to advert to this subject, but it has been incidentally raised by my noble Friend. Before I sit down, as the Bill before the House, provides another loan of 7,000,000 l., it is impossible for me to for-bear expressing the alarm and regret with which I have received, this proposal for an additional loan. My Lords we have already sanctioned a loan of 16,000,000 l.; then there is the guarantee of the Turkish loan, which, in the most favourable view, is equal to another loan of half the nominal amount, 2,500,000 l.; then there is the

2099
7,000,000 l, which the Government are now authorized to raise—making a total of 25,500,000 l., of borrowing which Parliament has sanctioned in a single Session. My Lords, I for one look with the utmost dismay on such draughts upon the resources of the country. My noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) has already called attention to the enormous amount of our present expenditure, for, in addition to these loans and our largely increased taxation, the expenditure is going on at a rate that is truly frightful. It is impossible for an expenditure of this amount and for this vast borrowing to go on long without the most serious results—results that will not end with the war, but which will remain, for a long day after the present war has terminated, to press severely upon, us My Lords, among the ill effects of this enormous expenditure which has been largely met by borrowed money, the worst is the moral effect upon the people of this country, and there are already unmistakable signs that there will be found in this country the same consequences that have been invariably produced by the same circumstances in other countries and other times. My Lords, when either individuals or nations are engaging in a large expenditure, which is partly defrayed by loans, there arises a spirit of profusion and a neglect of all wise economy which leads to the most fatal results. Your Lordships cannot look with attention on what is going on around you without seeing that this is taking place as the result of the large national expenditure. Apart from all questions of the policy of the war—if I could agree that the war in which, we are engaged is politic and necessary, and if I agreed—as I heartily do—that, having engaged in it, it should be carried on with the utmost possible vigour, still I see, unmistakable signs that it is being carried on without that due regard to economical, consideration which should direct those who are charged with the management of affairs:—on the contrary, I am persuaded that a spirit of great extravagance has prevailed, and that the same real amount of service might have been attained at far less cost if the money voted by Parliament had been judiciously expended. I do not altogether blame the Government for this—the blame partly rests with the Houses of Parliament—but the bad effects of this profuse war expenditure and the excitement that war creates are that they produce in the nation a
2100
general spirit of disregard of all considerations of economy. The House of Commons, which ought to be a check upon the Government and prevent the public money being wasted, seems, on the contrary, to have no other duty than to call for the most unbounded expenditure, and to vote without inquiry any enormous sum that may be asked for. It is the same with individuals. Every person connected with shipping or commerce of course is trying to make as much as possible out of the Government by the commodities which they supply, or the facility which they afford by the use of their vessels. In other respects this profuse expenditure is producing a corrupt and demoralizing effect upon the national character that is attended by the most fatal consequences. My Lords, it does in my opinion, become us and the country to consider what is the present state of the world, will be the ultimate effect of this system upon the future power and welfare of this country. My noble Friend has alluded to the enormous accumulated resources which have been husbanded during a long peace. Your Lordships will remember that when peace comes again, all these demands upon the public exchequer, which we are now recklessly incurring, will have to be provided for; that there will be the interest upon these loans to be met, and a heavy expenditure upon the reduction of your warlike and military armaments. You cannot go back after increasing your establishments to this enormous extent to where you were before, for personal claims and vested interests will be created which it would not be just to disregard. You must be prepared, my Lords, to look at these questions, and, whenever peace comes, the duty of adapting your establishments to the altered state of public opinion will be one of immense difficulty; but this is not all. At the very time these demands are made upon you the nation will have become impatient, and we may then see a reaction from the present temper of extravagance to a disposition to make over-hasty and imprudent reductions. That is the more probable because the Government seem to have entered upon that most mistaken policy of embarking upon a large expenditure during the time of war for particular purposes unconnected with the war. I have already pointed out the impolicy of expending large sums of money upon fortifications and barracks at home which cannot be wanted during this war,

2101
and which are not likely, according to the system pursued, to be done in a proper manner. When the time comes that this reaction shall take place and when injudicious reductions shall be called for, this House will have the most difficult question to consider, how to relieve the people from the pressure of taxation? Your Lordships will remember that the state of the world is much altered from what it was in former days. Already a great stream of emigration is setting out—an emigration not only of the best of the population, but of those men who carry with them no inconsiderable portion of the national wealth. If your taxes press too heavily on productive industry you will artificially increase that tendency to emigration, by rendering it difficult for men to live at home, and thus you will injure the very sources of your power. The same effect will be produced upon your trade. In the present state of the world, with active rivals on the other side of the Atlantic, with the competition of your Colonies to contend against, you cannot, without injury to the vital sources of your power, impose taxation upon trade and industry beyond a certain amount; and therefore, when peace returns, you will find, if this system of loans is carried much further, that you have inflicted a most irreparable injury upon the nation. I hope that these things will be considered not only by your Lordships but also by the public, and that there will be a general desire to prevent the continuance of this system of enormous expenditure and ruinous loans.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly. Bill reported, without Amendment: and to be read 3a on Monday next.

LIMITED LIABILITY BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order.)
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he would again implore the Government to reconsider its determination not to insert a minimum of capital. He firmly believed that unless some minimum of capital was fixed, the greatest possible injury would be inflicted on the operation of this Bill. There was nothing in the Bill at present to prevent Joint-stock Companies being formed and actually carried out with a capital of 50 l. The Act required only that there should be twenty-five shareholders, and that the shares should not be less than 10 l. each, the sum of 21. only being required
2102
to be paid up; so that each of the twenty-five shareholders, holding one share; on which he paid 21., would be able to avail himself of the privileges of this Act. He confidently believed that bubble Companies without number would be formed, if this Act were passed, and he trusted that Government would consent to adopt the principle of a minimum in the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEcould not conceive upon what grounds the noble Lord's apprehensions of evil from the want of limitation which he sought to introduce were founded. He (Earl Granville) was at a loss, even supposing Companies should be formed with a capital of 50 1., which he much doubted, to know what harm would result. How could Companies formed with a paid-up capital of 50 l., and a nominal capital of 250 l., inspire persons with confidence in the shareholders collectively, which was not felt for those shareholders individually.
EARL GREYthought it extremely ridiculous to provide that under this Bill, which incorporated the whole machinery of the Joint-stock Companies Act, Companies might be formed with directors, auditors, and secretary—and all for the I purpose of managing the affairs of a Company with a capital of 250 l. It was a most absurd thing. If it were desirable to form such Companies, an alteration of the law of partnership would be the best mode of bringing about such a result.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYperfectly agreed with the remarks which had just fallen from the noble Earl opposite, as to the absurdity of setting in operation the machinery of the Joint-stock Companies Act for such small capitals; but in his opinion that very absurdity was the best security against the establishment of such Companies. The expense would be too great to admit of their being formed. Her Majesty's Government had introduced a Partnership Bill, but they had not been able to proceed with it through the other House. It was, however, their intention to reintroduce it in the next Session.
LORD REDESDALEwished to know what would be the nature of the liability incurred by Companies formed under the Bill, carrying on manufactures from which revenue had to be collected? Would each shareholder in the Company be severally liable for the payment of excise duties?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdid not see that in the event of Companies being formed for such purposes any greater

2103
difficulties would arise than those which existed in the case of individual manufacturers.
LORD. CAMPBELLwas understood to say that if any offence against the revenue laws were committed, the managers would be liable to any pecuniary penalties in solido.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the plant or other property of the Company would be a sufficient security to the revenue.
EARL GREYagain brought forward his clause providing for an independent audit of formed accounts of all Companies to be formed under this Bill; which he said he Considered so very important, that he thought it his duty to renew his Motion of the previous night. His object was that the auditors should not be appointed by the directors of the Company, which would make the audit delusive, but by the Commissioners for Auditing the Public Accounts. There could not be any objection to this, unless it was intended that the audit should be a sham; but Parliament meant that it should be real and effective; and all he desired was to secure that it should be so. In his belief, it depended upon an independent audit whether the measure should be, or should not be, made the means of wide-spread fraud.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the Amendment. The publicity which was the essence of the Bill, had no reference to making public the mode in which the Companies transacted their business, but to giving the shareholders the security Which was derivable from proper accounts. Moreover, it would be very objectionable to make the Government indirectly responsible for the audit by giving to a Government Department the appointment of auditors. Added to this, the effect would be to increase the expense.
LORD CAMPBELLwas astonished that the Government should object to this Amendment Which he believed was most important. The Joint-stock Companies Act required the audit which was now proposed, except as to the mode of appointment. Every enactment in that Act must be applied to the Companies under the present measure; and, among others, the provisions as to credit. The Joint-stock Companies Act (8th and 9th Vict.) required an audit and the publication of the accounts; yet the noble Lord actually said he deemed it undesirable that the condition of a Company should be made known.
2104
Why, as the law stood, it must be made known. Before there could be a registration there must be an audit by the Board of Trade. The audit by auditors appointed by the directors would be a delusion and a snare; and if there were any fraudulent intention this delusive audit would
be the best means of promoting it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to the proposal. If they were considering, as they might have to do general measure for regulating Joint-stock Companies, it might be proper subject of consideration whether their accounts should be audited by public functionaries. But the clause now proposed did not say how many, or when, or in what way the auditors should be appointed.
EARL GREYcould see no difficulty in the case. All that would be necessary to be done would be for a company to send a letter to the Commissioners of Audit requesting them to send some person to audit the accounts. If the words as they stood were not sufficiently clear, he was willing to adopt others which might be suggested as more appropriate.
EARL GRANVILLEwas of opinion that there would be great difficulty in the way of the practical application of the proposed power.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought the difficulties were not insuperable. If the matter was deferred until next Session, an objection would be raised to any such provision, that it was contrary to the contract under which the Companies were formed.
EARL GRANVILLEpromised to consider the clause, and see if it was practicable to introduce it into the Bill.
Clause withdrawn.
LORD CAMPBELLproposed a clause to allow costs against shareholders when the Company had no assets against which execution could be levied.
Clause agreed to. Further Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.